"Virtuals" can no longer be adopted?

[+JacobBarlow]

I've adopted a few virtual caches from people, the www.geocaching.com/adopt link always worked fine, but today it didn't, the cacher trying to give me his virtual said that it said :

 

"The 'Virtual Cache' listing cannot be adopted."

 

My question is are they no longer allowed to be adopted or is he just doing something wrong?

[+Zop]

I've adopted a few virtual caches from people, the www.geocaching.com/adopt link always worked fine, but today it didn't, the cacher trying to give me his virtual said that it said :

 

"The 'Virtual Cache' listing cannot be adopted."

 

My question is are they no longer allowed to be adopted or is he just doing something wrong?

 

I've heard that recently also. I think the untimate goal here is to have all "virtuals' moved over to Waymarking. Preventing the adoption is one step in that direction.

[+briansnat]

I've heard that recently also.

 

It's not a recent thing. It's been the case since new virtuals were no longer being accepted here. Virts can't be adopted or unarchived.

Edited September 17, 2008 by briansnat

[+firennice]

how do they even know if a virtual is being maintained?

[+fizzymagic]

Perfect example of a "perverse incentive."

 

If I have a virtual, I will keep it live no matter whether it needs maintenance or not. Actually, come to think of it, that's true for all my caches.

 

A little more thought about the guidelines and how they are enforced could have avoided this situation.

 

I still enjoy doing virtual caches. Lamemarks... not so much.

[+JacobBarlow]

I've heard that recently also.

 

It's not a recent thing. It's been the case since new virtuals were no longer being accepted here. Virts can't be adopted or unarchived.

 

Actually I've adopted several virtual caches recently, I was wondering if it was a new change with the latest website changes...

[Mr.Yuck]

I've heard that recently also.

 

It's not a recent thing. It's been the case since new virtuals were no longer being accepted here. Virts can't be adopted or unarchived.

 

Actually I've adopted several virtual caches recently, I was wondering if it was a new change with the latest website changes...

 

I don't know if it goes back to 2005, as Briansnat seems to be implying, but I had heard some time ago you couldn't do it. So my guess (and just a guess), is that you "got away with it" a few times.

[+JacobBarlow]

I've heard that recently also.

 

It's not a recent thing. It's been the case since new virtuals were no longer being accepted here. Virts can't be adopted or unarchived.

 

Actually I've adopted several virtual caches recently, I was wondering if it was a new change with the latest website changes...

 

I don't know if it goes back to 2005, as Briansnat seems to be implying, but I had heard some time ago you couldn't do it. So my guess (and just a guess), is that you "got away with it" a few times.

 

Okay, I'd buy that... The real question I'm asking is "Did the website get changed recently ( within the last few months ) so that adoptions of virtual type caches are physically impossible...

If I "got away with it" then that would mean you're "not supposed to" but it still works if you try it... you know?

[+SUp3rFM & Cruella]

I think so. You could initiate and finish an adoption process for a virtual cache. It wasn't supposed to happen, I think.

 

They got it fixed.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The guidelines say that grandfathered cache types may not be adopted, so it looks like you got away with it.

[Mr.Yuck]

I think so. You could initiate and finish an adoption process for a virtual cache. It wasn't supposed to happen, I think.

 

They got it fixed.

 

I suppose you could read through all the "release notes" threads in the Geocaching website forum, if you're really that interested to see if it wasn't supposed to happen, and recently got fixed. I too know a virtual that was adopted out in the last year, but it's supposed to be "temporary" due to an overseas military deployment, or so I'm told.

[+Renegade Knight]

I've heard that recently also.

 

It's not a recent thing. It's been the case since new virtuals were no longer being accepted here. Virts can't be adopted or unarchived.

 

Actually I've adopted several virtual caches recently, I was wondering if it was a new change with the latest website changes...

Must be somewhat recent. I adopted out my virtual a year or more ago.

[+ShowStop]

That option was removed a couple months ago.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=199518

• An error will now be generated when attempting to transfer ownership of a virtual or webcam cache using the /adopt tool
  

[+GrateBear]

Just curious, why would you have to adopt a virtual cache? I've found a few where I sent an e-mail to the "owner", never heard back, so logged it anyway. None have been rejected. Am I wrong for doing so?

[+ShowStop]

Just curious, why would you have to adopt a virtual cache? I've found a few where I sent an e-mail to the "owner", never heard back, so logged it anyway. None have been rejected. Am I wrong for doing so?

That's a pretty typical way of logging a virtual. Log your find and email the answers to the owner. Some owners will respond, some wont. Usually if there is some issue with your answers or log, then they will respond. I'd say I get a response in less then 20% of all the virtuals I have found.

 

In regards to the adoption, sometimes people move away and can't maintain the cache or maybe don't want to deal with the virtual anymore. I've seen several cache owners that simply archive a virtual since they don't want to deal with them anymore. Since virtuals can never be un-archived, its a shame to lose any of them.

[+SUp3rFM & Cruella]

I suppose you could read through all the "release notes" threads in the Geocaching website forum, if you're really that interested to see if it wasn't supposed to happen, and recently got fixed. I too know a virtual that was adopted out in the last year, but it's supposed to be "temporary" due to an overseas military deployment, or so I'm told.

 

I remember reading about that in the release notes. I wasn't 100% sure when I wrote my reply but pretty close (99,99%).

[+GrateBear]

Just curious, why would you have to adopt a virtual cache? I've found a few where I sent an e-mail to the "owner", never heard back, so logged it anyway. None have been rejected. Am I wrong for doing so?

In regards to the adoption, sometimes people move away and can't maintain the cache or maybe don't want to deal with the virtual anymore. I've seen several cache owners that simply archive a virtual since they don't want to deal with them anymore. Since virtuals can never be un-archived, its a shame to lose any of them.

That's the part I don't understand. I've found 29 virtuals, and of the ones I can recall, can't think of any that would need maintenance. They are usually historic sites or something similar that wouldn't need to be maintained. I agree, it is too bad to have them archived.

Oh, well, that's life.

[+The Blind Acorn]

Hang on to the "Virtual" - think of it as payback for other caches not being allowed...

[Mr.Yuck]

Just curious, why would you have to adopt a virtual cache? I've found a few where I sent an e-mail to the "owner", never heard back, so logged it anyway. None have been rejected. Am I wrong for doing so?

In regards to the adoption, sometimes people move away and can't maintain the cache or maybe don't want to deal with the virtual anymore. I've seen several cache owners that simply archive a virtual since they don't want to deal with them anymore. Since virtuals can never be un-archived, its a shame to lose any of them.

That's the part I don't understand. I've found 29 virtuals, and of the ones I can recall, can't think of any that would need maintenance. They are usually historic sites or something similar that wouldn't need to be maintained. I agree, it is too bad to have them archived.

Oh, well, that's life.

 

Virtuals disappear!! I had one (that was only listed on Navicache.com) where the building was torn down. I can think of one in Oklahoma that was a train engine or box car, that got moved out of the area. It would take some work for me to find the link though.

 

Then of course there are tons of "unmaintained" virtuals, as in absent owners who don't respond to emails, or check the logs for authenticity. They then become an orgy of "greetings from Germany" armchair finds from Google.

[+TrailGators]

Perfect example of a "perverse incentive."

 

If I have a virtual, I will keep it live no matter whether it needs maintenance or not. Actually, come to think of it, that's true for all my caches.

 

A little more thought about the guidelines and how they are enforced could have avoided this situation.

 

I still enjoy doing virtual caches. Lamemarks... not so much.

Ditto.

 

I'm not sure why someone would give up owning a cache that you don't have to maintain.

[+fizzymagic]

That's the part I don't understand. I've found 29 virtuals, and of the ones I can recall, can't think of any that would need maintenance.

Virtuals disappear!! I had one (that was only listed on Navicache.com) where the building was torn down. I can think of one in Oklahoma that was a train engine or box car, that got moved out of the area. It would take some work for me to find the link though.

That's not maintenance. If the subject of a virtual disappears, you archive it. There is no maintenance involved except in exceedingly rare cases.

 

Sorry, but this is a sore subject from way, way back. Luckily, Earthcaches are allowed.

[+Cherokee Bill]

To stop the addition of new "Virtuals", i my opinion is WRONG I have never planted a Virtual, but I have enjoyed every Virtual I have been to.

 

I say bring Um back

Edited September 20, 2008 by Cherokee Bill

[Mr.Yuck]

That's the part I don't understand. I've found 29 virtuals, and of the ones I can recall, can't think of any that would need maintenance.

Virtuals disappear!! I had one (that was only listed on Navicache.com) where the building was torn down. I can think of one in Oklahoma that was a train engine or box car, that got moved out of the area. It would take some work for me to find the link though.

That's not maintenance. If the subject of a virtual disappears, you archive it. There is no maintenance involved except in exceedingly rare cases.

 

OK, I can see how someone wouldn't consider that "maintenance". It's not like the virtual owner could put the train engine back.

 

Sorry, but this is a sore subject from way, way back. Luckily, Earthcaches are allowed.

 

Perhaps if we pooled some money, and paid them to bring virtuals back?

Edited September 20, 2008 by TheWhiteUrkel